211 comments:

Oh Andy, you poor suck. The only thing worse than the JournoList frauds molding news coverage for the shit-brained Obama supporters out there is phony conservatives doing the same thing under the guise of "balance". You are what you decry, Madame Sullivan.

What should really tip any thinking person off to this collusion was when Ackerman posted an idea to the list, and everyone else replied that it was a bad idea. Talk about groupthink. And really, any leaked email by itself is all the proof you ever need. By a liberal of course.

"What should really tip any thinking person off to this collusion was when Ackerman posted an idea to the list, and everyone else replied that it was a bad idea."

They only thought it was a bad idea because they didn't think it would work. Otherwise, they were totally okay with slandering some random conservative as a racist. And all of them were on board for trying to figure out how best to lie to the American public about the story. They just couldn't agree on the best way.

But lying is what liberals do. It is just how they are. As you prove every day on here Garage.

As for decrying Sullivan, isn't it enough to say that he is often wrong? Simply that he is incorrect? That his ideas are poor?

Isn't that more meaningful and important than viciously going on about his illness?

What if he really did have a horrible mental illness and yet his ideas were correct? Then his illness wouldn't matter, would it? Because it's the ideas that matter. And if that's the case, might as well let the man alone.

I have to agree with Freeman. The attacks on Sullivan are over-the-top and quite petty. Sure, I disagree with a lot of his secondary opinions expressed in that post, but is it so hard to say that his main premise is spot-on? A little bit of common decency and the willingness to acknowledge a point makes one much more pleasant to associate with.

Yes, I think Sullivan's Palin-bashing borders on derangement, but that doesn't stop me from agreeing with his main premise. It's not necessary to use a nuclear approach when dealing with someone you don't like or can't stand. Life is much more enjoyable for you and everyone else when you don't lob bombs at every opportunity.

I understand this is Spencer getting excited in a private context in the face of a baldly racist propaganda campaign by the FNC-RNC machine to use Wright to tar Obama.

"Baldly racist?" Defend that one, Sullivan. Because that looks a lot like the absurd sort of thing that Spencer was advocating.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that if a conservative candidate had attended a church where his "spiritual mentor" taught the same sorts of things we've heard from Wright, Sullivan would be relentlessly "tarring" the conservative candidate with it.

Freeman- No. AS is unprincipled, unfair, and vicious. (I first wrote viscous, and that's probably true too.) Unfortunately, he was probably that way when I was agreeing with him and cheering him on. I am now somewhat ashamed that I ever enjoyed reading AS and considered him worth reading.

The far right is right on this: this collusion is corruption. It is no less corrupt than the comically propagandistic Fox News and the lock-step orthodoxy on the partisan right in journalism - but it is nonetheless corrupt.

I love to take the gratuitous jab at Righties myself, but even I find this to be a little much.

I'm glad Journo-list is over.

It ain't over. The particular list-serv is gone, but the issue of collusion between the media and the political establishment remains. What connections are there between media outlets (especially the NY Times and WaPo) and the Obama administration?

The Elephant in the room, is the discussion of how to attack innocent conservattives with the worst attack in the US culture. The Racist label...

Actually not quite true, Ackerman said he didn't think calling a conservative he didn't think was racist, a racist, was fair.

We do know Breitbart called Sherrod a racist, on his website, knowing full well he didn't have the whole tape. As it turns out she isn't a racist, and is supported by the white farmer's family and other white farmers who came to her defense.

I highly doubt conservatives are angry they might be called a racist, what they really want to happen is people on the journolist be discredited as much as possible. And to fire up the rubes. You have to have just fallen off the turnip truck to think conservative journalists don't share ideas or plans on email.

"John, I know many thoughtful conservatives. They just don't post to Althouse.

Sorry, but it is true."

And I am sure you have lots of black friends to. And you are sorry but it is true why? Because you say so? You are just showing yourself as being unable to make an argument or engage in an intelligent conversation. Attempting to camoflouge that fact through smugh hand wringing doesn't work.

Andrew is having the famous "Lucid Interval" that the law recognizes as mentally competent expression in a document. I take him at his word that he was appaled by the mafia like thuggery of Ezra the Terrible.

When this story first showed up today none of the liberal trolls could be found here or on Reason. But after they got their marching orders and talking points they showed up to muddy the water and obfiscate as much as possible.

Jake, how about a thoughtful Liberal once in a while? Here's a question for you to thoughtfully answer: Why do Liberals formulate and propagate lies designed to make their political opponents seem racist? Is it that the ideas on the Left are so antithetical to decent society that people need to be enraged in order to subject themselves to them, and racial rage is the easiest to conjure?Or is it that Liberals are so stone-cold racist that they need to see racial hatred in order to motivate them to work on their other political ends?It can't be a coincidence that so many prominent Liberal opinion makers are fomenting and excusing racial violence this year. Why do you think that is? Thoughtfully, of course.

No you are lying. He said just pick anyone of them. He didn't care if they were racist or not. He said Dohout didn't "deserve the treatment". He didn't say the others were racist. He just didn't think it mattered if he slandered them.

You really have amazingly poor reading comprehension skills. I know you are a liberal and that is to be expected. But yours is bad even for a liberal.

And who cares that the family forgave her. A lot of black people forgave George Wallace. But that doesn't change what he was.

It's amazing what you can find out with a little simple research! Be sure to revisit all of "Jake's" previous comments. Notice the laser-like personal focus on Ann Althouse... Seems familiar, doesn't it?

Why does Andrew Sullivan drive everyone nuts? I understand why he can drive Althouse nuts when he gets personal, but he's just a guy who can say some silly things and get them published. There are bigger worries.

I am becoming convinced that there is a small group of trolls who go to the various liberal blogs to get their talking points. And then they spend their day mucking up conservative threads as possible.

They always make the same rediculous arguments. They always think the same way. I really am begining to think that it is coordinated.

Sorry but "they did it to" is a school yard taunt. It is not an argument. Rupert Murdoch could be the focus of evil in the modern world and it wouldn't make these people look any better.

You're not sorry because you would never dare criticize the obvious bubble mentality of the right. The day you do is the day I'll take you seriously.

In the meantime, in a two-party system, the other side of the aisle will always be compelled to emulate some of the lowest common denominator tactics of the one side. Whether the left will organize an all-out media war against the one you declared through Journolist, or in some other guise, it doesn't matter. And no, I won't apologize for it. At least not to you personally -(See preceding paragraph for details).

Jealousy. Lack of blog traffic compared to his. Insufficient respect for innovating the medium as successfully as he did. Inability to allow for and engage the level of criticism that he does. Inability to follow his heterodox example.

Yeah Ritmo, plus there was all that great stuff about Governor Palin's vag. Cutting edge heterodoxy all up in that mutha.As for his level of criticism and blah, blah, blah, the tool makes all sorts of accusations, and constantly presents subjective info. as fact, without allowing feedback on his blog. That's just plain weak, no matter what side of the aisle you are on. he's no great thinker. He's not much of anything.

But thanks for reminding me Pollo called me out on the spelling, not knowing, or checking how it was spelled.

Garage, FYI: There's thread buried somewhere over on Trooper's where he took me to task on the same point: conch vs cooch. TY threads are really hard to search comments-wise. That what I was referring to and I was just giving you a hard time.

Given the order of magnitude greater traffic than this blog (or any blog on the right) that Sullivan gets, he's much better off continuing to respectfully publish the dissents and respond to them personally. His readers, when he polls them, seem to prefer it that way as well. Given their numbers, that should count for something. Should, but won't.

Ritmo wrote:That's right, jr. It was the left that discovered that image and perception were everything.

Well, actually Sprite did. And the conservatives, as unoriginal as they are, merely copied.

$20 says that if Obama had previously governed Alaska and shot wolves from the air you wouldn't give a damn what policies he endorsed.Well it's one thing for sure, your lefty media sure as hell regaled us with stories about Palin and her vagina and her shooting wolves, and her baby and how she was such an idiot. Those reporters sent down to Alaska to dig up all kinds of dirt sure did their due diligence. But you seem to want that scrutiny of Palin, but when it comes to Obama, how dare anyone look into his past. And if they do they're racist. Just don't highlight anyhthing that Wright says and certainly don't make Obama answer any follow up questions about said relationship to the fiery preacher who is so controversial that he must be thrown under the bus.Here's the degree of their curiosity (to paraphrase)Reporter: Mr. Obama, how could you sit in the church for 20 years and not do anything?Obama: I didn't know.Reporter: Ok, then.

But I imagine those in Pravda would similarly find reason to defend their work as "the truth". It's just refreshing to see the machination laid so bare.The left like to smear people with race cards to bury stories about their candidates. We all know it, and it has been done since forever ("This is racism straight up! This is about hating a black man in the white house!" George Bush doens't care for Black People! George Bush let NO flood or took his time to get there BECAUSE N.O. is predominantly black. Yadda yadda.

If there is a lefty "journalist" and he is dealing with republicans, it is axiomatic that inevitablity a race card will be thrown. We call it "playing the Ackerman".But don't you guys get tired of the same old song over and over Ritmo?I imagine Lynrd Skynrd must have occasionally winced when they had to play Freebird again and again at concerts but they were showmen and the show must go on. You guys, though, never wince. It's all par for the course. And racism is bad, don't get me wrong. But smearlng people as being racist, is almost as odious, and the left is so damn good at it. It's like the first weapon in your political arsenal. It's good to have journolist emails though that show the thought process behind the smear. In their defense though they did want to spare Ross Douthhout from the Ackerman smear.As long as Douthhout was spared!

Right jr. In the conservative's mind, everything in the world can be reduced to a market except for the media. The consumer's always right except for when it comes to information and analysis, right? And if the entire country wasn't as incensed and up in arms about a minority preacher's jeremiads in America as the irrelephants and their red state patrons were, then the media didn't sufficiently propagandize enough. Ok. I get your point. I don't feel your pain but I get your point.

You guys got a pass on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's much more public jeremiads. Let it pass or let your falling out with the religious right continue. Your choice. Either way, we win.

And the only place I've ever read about Palin's perhaps falsified (and constantly glorified, by the right) pregnancy story is on Sullivan. Nowhere else. But keep imagining that conspiracy of yours. I suppose it helps you cope with your loss of control over the market for political information.

You're an idiot, AC. (And BTW, what's up with these 2-letter acronyms followed by cryptic numeric codes among the Irrelephants? Is it some sort of hold-over from the John Birch days?)

Sullivan's blog is always listed as a separate blog when traffic is measured. It's actually got its own name: The Daily Dish. And he probably brought more traffic to Time on-line when he was there, as he seems to have done with The Atlantic.

Good writers are good writers. Yes, it's pitiful that your side has so few of them, but I know you're too proud and in denial for any tears shed to be of much use. So Boo Hoo.

A curious (not really) aspect of this JournoList kerfuffle is that the people being most manipulated (the dolts who still take The Atlantic, The Washington Independent, The Washington Post, etc. seriously) are the ones defending the manipulators. A hatred for the truth has always been part and parcel with Leftism, but this proudly self-inflicted ignorance is a new low.

Hooray! Andrew Sullivan and I agree on something today, an occurrence which used to be so common but which is now so rare.

I love you, Freeman Hunt. Yeah, I don't get the viciousness toward Sullivan for this post at all. Of course he thinks the conservative media coordinates its talking points with the GOP. But he's being very honest and forthright, no phony rationalizations, in confronting Journolist for what it is, using a word I've seen no one else use, "corrupt." Good for him.

He's often wrong, but not wrong all the time. The problem with Sullivan is that when he is wrong, he is bull-headedly, delusionally wrong.

Talking about his illness is sickening. Come on, conservatives, you're winning the Web today, show a little class.

Lincolntf is a good example of the “group think” the runs through many of the comments on this blog: great exaggerations without merit. The claim that left has been antithetical to a decent society would surprise my friends in Finland and Denmark who on the whole have a better quality of life than we do… but I digress, I have read Sullivan’s blog often enough these last eight years to know that he is honest enough to admit when he held the wrong opinions, and well as objective enough to call out Clinton as well as Bush or others whether liberal or conservative.

Ritmo wrote:You guys got a pass on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's much more public jeremiads. Let it pass or let your falling out with the religious right continue. Your choice. Either way, we win.

You libs sure don't want to give repubs a pass on the Falwell's of the world. Which is why when you suddenly declared that associations don't matter it showed you to be the partisan hacks you were. Because that is ALL that matters to you guys (well that and smearling people as racists or sexists) and that is how you target republicans. The fact that the media suddenly went silent when Obama's associations came to light only shows what a bunch of hypocrites they (and the left) are.I'm sure some feminists wince at the amount of shit they had to ignore to defend Clinton, to the point where their bodies were contorted into pretzel shape, to the point where their feminist ideals were revealed to be utter garbage and worthless (considering how cheaply they sold them to keep a democrat in office who was such an obvious pig - though charming). At least those feministis who admit some shame to themselves or on journolist can at least lament their lost innocence. The Pravdian hacks that comprise the vast majority of the left never had such scruples or morals to begin with.They'll say ANYTHING to get their guys elected. History means nothing to them, and the smear is everything. Which is why they can get away with having a president hold Iraq accountable for almost 8 years, bomb iraq, sanction Iraq, all because of WMD's but then suddenly convince their followers that Bush made all that WMD stuff up. He lied! He betrayed us! Oh yeah mr gore, you who were with Clinton the whole time when he passed the ILA and who personally said, "of course renditions are against international law, that's why they call them covert actions (Go grab his terrorist ass)", but then with a straight face can suggest that somehow it's wrong when Bush uses renditions on the grounds that IT'S AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. How convenient.And note, the dems railed against the evils of the patriot act and Obama keeps it open, the dems and Obama personall railed against drone attacks (which increase terrorism) and Obama continues using them. Gitmo,still open. And except for one or two libs, no libs really give a crap. Becasue Obama is a liberal, and therefore those things that made Bush evil incarnate that Obama continues, are suddenly issues not even worth commenting on. Because at least Obama isn't racist like Bush. What makes Bush racist? Because libs say he is. And if any repubs dare to question Obama too closely, well then we'll smear them as racist too. DOesn't matter who, it could be Karl Rove, it could be Fred Barnes (but NOT Douthhat damn it!), Who cares?

The claim that left has been antithetical to a decent society would surprise my friends in Finland and Denmark who on the whole have a better quality of life than we do…

I live in Denmark for five months out of the year. It is quite a different society than America-- much smaller, more homogeneous, less corrupt, and the government provides actual services rather than just paying off their patronage clients. The Left in America is antithetical to decent American society; but the Danish left works really well for Denmark.

Oh well, I suppose that because America-haters such as Robertson and Falwell were as in charge of such a large and well-mobilized a constituency then they got rewarded with a sort of control over government and the media that Reverend Wright could only dream of.

So? We're talking about when he became nationally recognized. Why is it okay to attack conservatives through Falwell and Robertson, but wrong to attack Obama for his decades-long association with a fanatic like Wright?

I live in Denmark for five months out of the year. It is quite a different society than America-- much smaller, more homogeneous, less corrupt, and the government provides actual services rather than just paying off their patronage clients. The Left in America is antithetical to decent American society; but the Danish left works really well for Denmark.

Once the right reacts less indecently to the idea of an America that is obviously more diverse than Denmark, then we can start making comparisons on a political basis.

So? We're talking about when he became nationally recognized. Why is it okay to attack conservatives through Falwell and Robertson, but wrong to attack Obama for his decades-long association with a fanatic like Wright?

I dunno. You go ahead and take on the evangelicals in your midst who would never stand for the former and then we can ponder the idea of fair-treatment vis a vis Wright.

Evangelicals are supposed to show no shame -- indeed, they are/were pandered to and incessantly fawned over as a voting bloc -- regarding their cozy love affair with every unscrupulous charlatan-proselyte who hogged the American stage and television set all this time, and Barack Obama is supposed to assume a backlash for attending services with a less renown preacher who once, perhaps not even in his presence, perhaps not even known to him, happened to utter the sort of jeremiad they did?

Nope. You guys still aren't grasping the concept of "fair" treatment. Get back to us later.

but I digress, I have read Sullivan’s blog often enough these last eight years to know that he is honest enough to admit when he held the wrong opinions, and well as objective enough to call out Clinton as well as Bush or others whether liberal or conservative.

The glaring exception to that is the whole Trig Palin thing. Sullivan keeps acting like we are going going to come round to his viewpoint on that one day.

With the exception of Sullivan himself and a few commenters around here (who frankly remind me too much of what a Sullivan sockpuppet would be like), who believes that shit?

The Braves just beat San Diego Padres 4 to 1. It is good to know that the Journolist doesn't fix baseball games like they fix the news games...or do they? Ted Turner and Jane Fonda's influence still lingers in the air at Turner Field, but we conservatives refudiate that. I guess Andy never learned inside baseball and all its special rules. That explains his fence sitting on American politics: half the time writing for liberals and half the time writing for conservatives. The poor guy is faking it in hopes that we will accept him.

You look at what the Democrats are doing and it scares you, right? How can you not be frightened about the future of America when you see the ruthless groupthink conformity of Journolist right before your eyes?

Perhaps it scares you even more when you reflect on the fact that you voted for the Left and now you feel duped???

And yet... where to go? You're not going to turn to crazy batshit insane Glenn Beck or a fascist like Malkin or too-old too-comfy too-fat Rush Limbaugh.

"The claim that left has been antithetical to a decent society would surprise my friends in Finland and Denmark who on the whole have a better quality of life than we do…'

As a person who unlike most hipster leftists has actually lived in Europe as opposed to vacationed there, that statement is untrue. Europeans have a much lower standard of living that Americans. Things that we take for granted like having a large house or owning more than one car is just not a possiblility for middle class Europeans.

You wouldn't of course know that becuase you are a leftist and by definition an ignorant hick who has no idea how the world actually lives beyond the cartoons your project on it.

And my friends from the old Eastern Block would gladly agree that the Left is against all that is decent in society. Why they were being enslaved by communism, you and your ilk were telling the world how great it was and how they all had free health care.

We have long since reached the point where the Left's obvious ignorance is no longer an excuse. You are just scum. It doesn't make any difference that you are too dumb to know any better.

"less renown preacher who once, perhaps not even in his presence, perhaps not even known to him, happened to utter the sort of jeremiad they did?"

Bullshit. Obama lied when he said he didn't know what Wright said. And besides, Wright had been saying that sort of shit for the 20 years that Obama attended that church. (And remember that Obama attended that church "every Sunday"...until he was confronted with one Wright diatribe, at which time he suddenly didn't attend every Sunday...or was asleep...or slept during the sermons...or something.) Some people may be naive to believe such bald-faced lies, I'd prefer that you peddle them elsewhere.

"You go ahead and take on the evangelicals in your midst who would never stand for the former"

I'm not sure what you mean by "never stand for". Are you implying that Robertson and Falwell are bigots? Nuts yes, but I don't think they are racial bigots. And as for me, well, I have always been willing to criticize (even mock) them--not that you would know anything about me--and plenty of conservatives have been doing so. But don't let facts get in the way of your libelous narrative.

I guess I've been waiting a long time for "my" narrative to be corrected by the deluge of conservative backlash against the Evangelical right and their leaders. Movements sprouted up all over. Perhaps they were backtraced and reported to Cyber Police. I just never knew it.

Ritmo...Catching up with you, what evangelicals do we need to denounce? I remember Falwell was a good orator that debated well even though in his church tradition he preached legalism more than I like. Robertson was and is a powerful man who built an excellent organisation in Virgina Beach that will go on after him. What was his crime again? If you want us to denounce a politically controversial evangelical still active today, how about John Hagee? I remember that the Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi did a hilarious insider expose on Hagee's Church in Houston, Texas. called The Great Derangement. Hagee is an interesting voice who is onto something when people from many political opinions are attacking or running away from him. I remember that MCCain denied that he new him after recieving his endorsement.

Things that we take for granted like having a large house or owning more than one car is just not a possiblility for middle class Europeans.

That is an interesting definition of middle class success.

My middle-class sister, who does live in northern Europe, is, as far as I can tell, very happy and content. Owns an apartment, just bought her first car since they moved over 20+ years ago. (Because she didn't need one before).

But I guess I have a serious question: if someone does not own a house, are they a middle-class success story? I own a house (well, more than half of it, the bank owns the rest). I have a brother that owns two houses, another brother who loves apartment life, and a sister who owns an apartment. Which of us is more successful?

Not interested in denunciations so long as any member of their flock is as tainted as the Right demands anyone who happened to sit in Wright's pews should be.

It's a simple matter of double standards and fairness that the hard right is stuck in contortions over - and can't win, as you can see.

It would be just like any other irrelevant matter that they blow up into the next BIGGEST AND LOUDEST MEME EVAH!! TM, except for the fact that they were caught in a huge display of double-standards with it. And some still don't seem to get that.

Ritmo wrote:Evangelicals are supposed to show no shame -- indeed, they are/were pandered to and incessantly fawned over as a voting bloc -- regarding their cozy love affair with every unscrupulous charlatan-proselyte who hogged the American stage and television set all this time, and Barack Obama is supposed to assume a backlash for attending services with a less renown preacher who once, perhaps not even in his presence, perhaps not even known to him, happened to utter the sort of jeremiad they did?First off, would you hold a conservative who sat at Falwell's pew to the same standard and assume he didn't know what Falwell was talking about? Or would you suggest that even if he attended once taht therfore he believed what Falwell believes and therefore should be villified for it. So, you are a hypocrite and a hack right offf the bat. Now, it's one thing to say, conservatives have their preachers and even if Obama did hang out with a radical preacher who said GOD DAMN AMERIKKKA and cursed whitey for all the ills of the world for the better part of 20 years in more than one speech, that you don't give a shit because republicans don't give a shit. That's not what was argued. What was argued was that there shoudln't even be a questioning of the association because those associations don't matter. When we all know better.

You libs can't even be truthful in your characterizations. We all know that if Mccain had a relationship with a extremist preacher that lasted 20 years that that would be all that the left would talk about.

I suppose I could take your tack and say "Hey, the libs dont do anything about their guy so why should I care" But instead I'd say, if he is hanging out with someone for that long then maybe that would at the very least be an idication of their character and would dictate whether or not i voted for the person . For example, if any politician had a cozy relationship with Fred Phelps, even if he was a republican, THEN I wouldn't vote for him! Because associations matter and because Phelps is an asshole!Unless of course you're a democrat.

The sheer number of words you write can't obscure the fact that America haters such Falwell and Robertson were embraced as leaders of a constituency of tens of millions of Right-Wing voters for The Republican Party, whereas Wright wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was because he didn't lead a white evangelical church that preached America's destruction as a result of radical lesbian feminists (or whatever), but instead of its failings based on aggressive foreign policy.

Other than that, feel free to notify me of any other crucial differences. Since when did Republicans denounce evangelicals and drive them out of any effort at seeking public office for embracing America haters such as Falwell and Robertson?

The issues are the following. Associations do matter. They matter to you when republicans have them and they matter to republicans when libs have them. ANd to non partisans matter everywhere they matter. So if some hack partisan suddenly says "Associations don't mater" or try to bury said associations they are liars (meaning Ritmo YOU are a liar) and hacks. It would be different if your side tried to defend the associations, by saying Obama and Wright's association is perfectly reasonable and tried to defend it. But you can't defend it, or realize that a vast majority of americans will not buy the defense so instead you try to bury it through lies or by arguing bullshit that not even 3 year olds believe? Associations don't matter? SInce when? And it's worse when the media becomes partisan enough to bury the truth or not ask the questions that they would of any other candidate, but for the fact that they are liberal partisan jackasses and are trying to protect their candidate at all cost.

Most americans don't like being lied to, and that's what your side did and does. Dont hoodwink people and say associations dont' matter, try to defend the association.

But of course not even Obama was that stupid. As soon as it came to light and the media started asking tough questions, he thew Wright under the bus along with all the others he had previously thrown under the bus.

And he argued the lamest "i didn't know defense imaginable, which as can be determined simply by reading his book but also by using common sense is utter bs. His not knowing is like a catholic not realizing he's attending a jewish synagogue for 20 years.

If he was principled, he would instead have kept his friendship and tried to defend him from those crazy right wingers making all these outlandish accusations (most likely based on their racism, as least that will be the talking point). But no, he didn'dt. He couln't because there is no defense but lying and disassociation. which again points back to the relevance of why Obama was there for 20 years in the first place. If the reverened is toxic enough that he must distance himself, then the fact that he didn't for two decades says a lot about him as a candidate. At the very least that should be addressed by the media because it is a legitimate question. But when the media is in the tank, such questions are never asked.

I know homeless people who are quite happy. To me happiness is one of - if not the most - important things in life, but strangely not a useful measure of much, especially prosperity.

The thing about U.S. prosperity is that it has insured and fueled most of the rest of the world's.

Europe, to a large extent, has lived like the young adult in the basement of his parent's house. Enjoying life while resenting the people who provide much of it.

I think one measure of prosperity is opportunity. The freedom to become whatever you want and get what you want or not. I think the U.S. excels at this. In Europe, there is much more class rigidity and lower expectations, which they have simply settled for and convinced themselves that it's by choice. The truth is that lowered expectations and ambition is a death rattle for a society. The rest of the world will only ignore you and allow it for so long before you look like a fattened calf. Lucky for them, they have dependable, wealthy and powerful parents.

Please report to the MSM media dept for a first time interview after John McCain sought out and accepted your endorsement for POTUS:

On Jews:

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

And:

How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.

On gays:

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

Europeans have a much lower standard of living that Americans. Things that we take for granted like having a large house or owning more than one car is just not a possiblility for middle class Europeans.

This is true. Americans go to Paris and don't realize the locals they're rubbing elbows with are quite a bit more wealthy than average. Those cute little apartments you dreamed about moving to for six months while you paint the local landmarks? More than a million bucks.

My impression is in most northern European countries people have about the same amount of money as your average American, but everything they buy is quite a bit more expensive than what you and I pay at home. I'm guessing that's mostly the VAT at work.

Hagee? Now you're getting pretty far afield. If you want to tar people on the right by association with Hagee, it must mean you're ready to take responsibility for people like Lee Harvey Oswald, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Ward Churchill?

One and a half cheers for Andrew Sullivan. He was unable to avoid flailing against his Usual Suspects, which diminishes his argument.

In so doing he minimizes the meaning behind that collusion, and the terrible injustice they've done.

So just 1.5 cheers.It reminds me too much of the ploy used by criminals during interrogations, where they cop to a small lie or crime, in order to seem more truthful when they lie about the bigger misdeed.

Associations are pretty important things - to people who can't think for themselves, let alone make distinctions between individuals. Let's just lump everyone in together based on some arbitrary association rather than assume that the opinion of one person they know doesn't substitute for their own. Maybe your opinions are interchangeable with those of the people you know, in which case I can understand your fascist stance. But it's not one you can assume most sensible people would subscribe to.

Anyway, my words illuminate rather than obscure. No matter how many of them I choose to include in a post.

I think one measure of prosperity is opportunity. The freedom to become whatever you want and get what you want or not. I think the U.S. excels at this. In Europe, there is much more class rigidity and lower expectations, which they have simply settled for and convinced themselves that it's by choice.

Hey jingoist Bag! Fuck off and get a clue. But maybe try getting a fact first. If it wouldn't hurt your brain.

Please report to the MSM media dept for a first time interview after John McCain sought out and accepted your endorsement for POTUS: "

Really, it's not an apt comparison with Obama & Wright. Although McCain's campaign staff made the error of seeking Hagee's endorsement, it's not as though he sat in the fifth pew of the man's church for the last twenty years.

Clearly, if Obama had had an issue with what Wright was pontificating he would've stopped being his parishioner long before it became a campaign liability for him.

You already proved how dumb you are with the God Bless America's Wealth routine, riddled with error and innuendo. If my ideas were that dumb, simple and wrong, then maybe I'd have less to say also.

Anyways, still trying to find evidence of the evangelical who was discouraged from seeking office on account of his silent nodding in the background, while Robertson yammered on a TV about how horrible America was.

It's a moot point, anyway. Those voters have either been split from the right, neutralized, dissembled or are in play like the rest of their shaky and incoherent coalition.

Ritmo...Falwell and Robertson were both Virginians. Falwell was from SW Virginia and totally a Southern Baptist with a political coalition that arose along with Reagan. He is dead now. Huckabee walks in his shoes today. Robertson was an early Charismatic that discovered TV broadcasting to Charismatic Christians. He had also been raised a Southern Baptist in Lexington, Va (Shenandoah Valley)in a political family (his father was a US Senator) and he attended Washington and Lee in Lexington. He is 80 now. Why anyone still feels a need to hate these two men is beyond me.

Why do you keep not getting the point, TG. I don't hate them. I don't care a fig about them. I just don't want someone whitewashing their followers simply because they could conveniently watch them on a TV screen rather than having to show up in an actual church to listen to what they had to say about, among other things, how horrible they thought America was.

Because in case you hadn't noticed, ranters "AC" and "jr" still believe they have a case to make regarding Jeremiah Wright and how much anyone associated with him (in a manner involving anything more than, I suppose, a television screen) deserves our absolute scorn and, I suppose, refudiation.

Ritmo wrote:The sheer number of words you write can't obscure the fact that America haters such Falwell and Robertson were embraced as leaders of a constituency of tens of millions of Right-Wing voters for The Republican Party, whereas Wright wasn't. And the reason he wasn't was because he didn't lead a white evangelical church that preached America's destruction as a result of radical lesbian feminists (or whatever), but instead of its failings based on aggressive foreign policy.

I disagree with your characterization of Falwell and Robertson as haters of this country. You will never find speeches of them saying "GOD DAMN AMERIKKKA" because first off, that's kind of blasphemous, and secondly, that's the arguments used by the left wing (that Amerikkka is the source of evil in the world). So they simply wouldn't argue that because that isn't what they believe. Whereas that is what WRIGHT believes and what many libs believe. Does Obama?

I think what you're referring to Falwelll hating america isis when Falwell said:"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."He's arguing agianst the turning away from god as a bad thing and saying that god is punishing us by removing his protection because we aren't heeding gods words. This is not denouncing Amerikkka though, it's denouncing secularization. What a shock to find a priest to have problems with secularization. By, the way, I didn't agree with the staement (as I don't think God brings plagues on the world simply because he's pissed0 and he was forced to apologize and clarify to say that the terrorists were responsible alone. And certainly there might be people who agree or disagree that secularization is destroying america, and those people that agree might more readily vote for a candidate who followed Fallwell, and those who didnt probably wouldn't. But how is that association not relevant. If you had any integrity though, (which you don't) then you would have to say that a presidential candidate who is in a church for 20 years with a preacher who has some pretty extreme views on white people, the american system/capitalism and Amerikkka should maybe have to answer for his associations. Otherwise you are just a hyperpartisan LIAR, which most of the left are.

You write: And the reason he wasn't was because he didn't lead a white evangelical church that preached America's destruction as a result of radical lesbian feminists (or whatever), but instead of its failings based on aggressive foreign policy." Don't forget the evil white man and his white man greed ( where white folks’ greed runs a world in need) . Can't leave that out of the equation Ritmo. And frankly, if we're going to get all offended that Falwell is singling out gays, how come you're not offended that Wright is singling out white's greed?WHy not greed in general or man's greed?

The Brooking Economic Mobility Project is incomplete. The report does not sound like they are convinced either. I find that one set of data suspect on it's face and need to learn more because it seem nonintuitive, for a number of reasons, but it could be valid. The question is at least far more complicated than what they graphed.

Europeans often make the argument themselves that they don't value upward mobility and have no need for it. Nearly every European I have ever met who has moved here did it for better opportunity and they always tell me what I wrote: that positions in life in Europe are much more fixed and that getting ahead is a lot about who you know and who you are. To a man they love the opportunity here. Nearly all these people I know have done very well. I know it's anecdotal, but unanimous in my experience. I don't know a single person who went to Europe to get richer. Rather it is usually to reduce their risk and live off of the system.

And you'll notice that I don't need to insult you to disagree. It's not really that much of a mental challenge to pull off when you control your emotions like us rubes do.

OK Ritmo...I see your point now. The quotes from Falwell and Robertson about sins mentioned in the Bible seemed offensive. That is true. The Reverand Wright was more focused on the sin of whites hating blacks to explain why the money was in white men's hands. Wright preached that the blacks were justified in taking the money from the whites. So Obama must have been listening real good. His beloved liberation theology means liberating white men's money, as Obama explained to Joe the Plumber.

Ok jr, I get your point about how white people shouldn't have been resented by blacks simply for having enslaved them or from profiting off the privilege of avoiding that enslavement themselves.

It's a great point, and one filled with so much integrity that I almost have a clue what it could possibly have to do with the gays and all that they've somehow magically done to engender resentment. Or something.

Meanwhile, from the Breitbart/Sherrod Fiasco, via LGF - After the full video comes out and exonerates her, Breitbart accuses the white farmers, who came out in her defense and said she was a "lifelong friend" who saved their farm, of being "plants." The farmer is a veteran of the Battle of Midway, whose ship was sunk and spent about 10 hours bobbing around in a life jacket waiting for rescue. I wonder who has more credibility here, the WWII veteran who came out and said he was the farmer, or the hack who likes posting highly edited videos to advance his cause.

Yet, I'm guessing some people here will continue to defend that scum Breitbart.

Ritmo wrote:Associations are pretty important things - to people who can't think for themselves, let alone make distinctions between individuals. Let's just lump everyone in together based on some arbitrary association rather than assume that the opinion of one person they know doesn't substitute for their own. Utter bullshit since you only apply this to conservatives and not to liberals. By your own logic you could never make inferences about conservatives and their associations to say Falwell, yet have done so all the time. Obama smears conservatives for being in bed with "Fat cat bankers" all the time(even though if you look at who contributed what - the dems were the recpients of the most campaign dontaions from Wall street by far - heckuva job Wall Street.) and lets not forget when Abramoff got arrested and the dems were trying to find pictures of him with Bush so they could smear Bush because of the association (I think there's a photo of them shaking hands, they are in league with each other!!!).This is not to say that Republicans don't do this as well. They do. The argument though that associations don't matter is a crock of shit, which you and your cohorts tried to pass off as a truthful argument. If in the future a republican IS linked to a radical preacher who hates black people for 20 years, we can be sure you will shut up about it and say it's not relevant, right? Because that's the rule you've tried to establish with Obama. Right?

In how many words can you conflate a spiritual or social relationship with a financial relationship, or worse, a relationship where political favors are exchanged for money? Because I'm thinking that you just pushed the record.

Keep focusing on "relationships" while you try to shield Wall Street by making them immune to regulation. That's the way you establish your integrity!

Ritmo wrote:Ok jr, I get your point about how white people shouldn't have been resented by blacks simply for having enslaved them or from profiting off the privilege of avoiding that enslavement themselves. Hey Wright is a member of a church that preaches Black Liberation Theology, so one shoudn't be surprised that he has an animus towards whitey (and maybe a justified one in his mind). Does Obama hold the same animus towards whites? Is he similarly resentful? Will his resentfulness work it's way into his policies if he becomes president considering he would have to be a president to all not just to black people? Was he nodding his head in agreement when WRight got to the part about white greed ruling the world? I don't know the answer to this, Im just trying to fathom how, if he dindn't believe shuch things that he stuck around that church for so long. Think about it, if it were a church that preached that Jews were the cause of much of the evil in the world (like say he joined the nation of Islam) and called Judaism a gutter religion, would you stay there 20 years if you didn't think that JEws are the cause of much of the world? Or would you find a church more to your liking.

As to the resentment of blacks towards whites, I noticed he singles out white Greed. Are other races incapable of greed? Is there no greed in the black commmunity or on any continent that is not ruled by Europeans? In regards to whites being involved in slavery. Yes that's true, but its a distinction without distinction. Muslims (who are not white) were just as involved in the slave trade as Europeans, and in fact Africans themselves had no problem sellling off their enemies (who were black) to enrich themselves. And white Europeans also fought against the slave trade both through an abolitioin movement but also through navy ships actually attacking slave ships on the open seas. And this country had a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people largely over slavery. I can see that certainly America is culpable for the slave trade, but why single out AMERIKKKA as if it was the sole beneficiary of slavery. Right now in the Sudan, Blacks are still being sold into slavery by muslims (many of them black). Wheres's all the talk of the black greed? or the islamic greed. OF course, WRights' criticism is also of capitalism, which again is why he views the system as an evil one, but there too, I wonder about Obama's association. Does Obama view America as America or AmeriKKKa? DOes he view capitalism as a good or something that needs to be done away with (I think we're starting to see the answer to this). Maybe it would have helped if some reporters asked about that at the time, instead of trying to bury the association.

It was a serious question. I assume you agreed with Obama that we need to transform America.

So do you love America now, the way it was in the past, the way it can be after transformation or just don't have an attachment one way or the other? Was it great, is it great, or is it merely exceptional just like Greece?

Ok jr, I get your point about how white people shouldn't have been resented by blacks simply for having enslaved them or from profiting off the privilege of avoiding that enslavement themselves.

A black man raped a friend of mine once. Should I resent blacks for having raped one of my friends? Or should I reserve my enmity for people who have actually wronged me, and not for every man, woman, and child belonging to the same race as people who wronged me?

The chart on intergenerational mobility linked to by Ritmo is based on estimates from a non-Brookings study. Google books allows ready access to a compilation of research on the topic edited by the author upon whom the Brookings report relies. A key feature of the data is that "children with above-average potential from low-income North American families experience more generational mobility than their European counterparts, but below average children from low-income families experience less." (emphasis added)

In short, Ritmo, Sully, Frum and Brookings have discovered the existence of a distinct underclass that consists of a subset of the poor who are stalled at the bottom. For people who are better situated to take advantage of the opportunities that exist, North America is a better place to be than Europe.

Thanks Adam, I dug into it some more since the chart seems so counterintuitive and incompatable with my own experience and observations. It's a complicated thing to measure, especially when comparing societies that live under different economic systems. I still don't know what the truth is, but have found more studies that lied to me than personal histories. My evidence is not scientific and I'm open to whatever truth is out there.

This whole disgusting mess reminds of Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering "lynching" by the Democrat congress when Bush was in charge. Except then it was the Democrats breitbarting Pickering. You had the national NAACP and Democrat Senators calling him a Mississippi racist, and local Mississippi black saying he wasn't. Guess who won out in the end?

Thank God 60 Minutes did a story on this... but didn't help Pickering get a seat on the Fifth Circuit court unfortunately.

What a sad and sordid world American politics can be... won't ever change, it is what it has always been.

The NAACP voted on a resolution to condemn racist elements in the Tea Party. From their website, "Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches."

The right-wing reacted by saying "they're calling all Tea Partiers racist." Andrew Breitbart comes out with a highly edited video condemning a administration employee, speaking before the NAACP, as a horrible racist. In reality, her speech was about overcoming racism. The farmers referenced in her speech come out in her defense, and Breitbart says they must be plants, because Sherrod clearly is a racist.

The fact that anyone will continue to defend Breitbart in this debacle is absolutely preposterous. No doubt, there are certainly some racists in the NAACP. I am not denying this. But this display of utter bullshit should be enough to forever discredit Breitbart. But given the current political climate, the right-wing will likely circle around him and make him the heroic victim here.

Ritmo wrote,In how many words can you conflate a spiritual or social relationship with a financial relationship, or worse, a relationship where political favors are exchanged for money? Because I'm thinking that you just pushed the record.

Keep focusing on "relationships" while you try to shield Wall Street by making them immune to regulation. That's the way you establish your integrity!More UTTER GARBAGE from your end. My point wasn't to shield wall street from anything, my point was to say that associations matter. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, and democrats have no problems making associations between republicans and say big oil, or candidate X and the white supremeacist he knows, so why should Obama's associations with AMERIKKKAN hating black liberation theologians and pentagon bombing terrorists be off limits. As already stated, they wouldn't be if the shoe were on the other foot. I guess I'm calling you a hypocrite. Yeah, that's it.

But since you want to talk about Wall street and regulation I have to ask, what is it with you libs and your simplistic notion of regulation? Do you even know what it means? What regulations in particular are you arguing against. Those arguing against deregulation never argue for no regulations whatsoever, they argue against inneficient regulations. You'll notice that even after we went through our last deregulation there were still plenty of regulations on the books, and I'm sure any lawyers who had to deal with business contracts could tell you about the numerous regulations they had to deal with to conduct business.Is it possible in your mind that maybe some regulations are bad, and or make business more difficult? I notice that democrats for example wanted backs to ease regulation and give out loans to more people under the Community Reinvestment act started under Carter and expanded under Clinton. Is that not a form of deregulation? And are all democrats and liberals against all deregulation? Really?

bagoh20, I'm no expert in the field, but apparently it's also the case that the results for the US vary considerably depending on which of two standard data sets is used. I think it's fair to say that intergenerational mobility is tough to measure accurately.

Also, when reading the full Brookings report be aware that the "income" data don't include employer-paid benefits such as retirement and health insurance. I have a hunch that that helps explain a lot of the post-1974 gap between productivity growth and wage growth that's reported.

-cont-Larry Summers, Timothy Geitner, Rubin, all working under Obama today, you think they are believers in all regulation of business and opposed to any deregulation.

This is one of my pet peeves about democrats and libs, which again points out what a bunch of absolute liars they are. First off, they trot out Bill Clinton as the democrat who gave George Bush the great economy which he squandered. So they want to take credit for the economy. Yet they also want to demonize Republicans.

Remember back during the election when Obamas campaign targeted Mcain because he hired Phil Graham to work on his committee. Aha, HE was the cause of our current problems because he pushed the repeal of Glass Steagal and as we all know Glass Steigal (and not say Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) was the cause of our current economic downturn. Those damn republicans. Obama made hay out of Graham being on board and the libs piloried Mccain for hiring the guy who wrecked our economy. Only, which president actually passed that deregulation? LEts see, it was 1999. Hmm, I think Clinton was in office then, and unless I'm mistaken Clinton is a democrat. And not only a democrat, but the democrat who had the good economy that Bush squandered. And who voted for the repeal of Glass Steigel? Yes many republicans. But also people like Chuck SHumer and....er..... Joe Biden. And who was on Clinton's economic staff? Why the same people who are on Obama's economic staff. Clinton, when asked about it said that he didn't think that the deregulation he passed was the cause of the current probem, but at any rate he passed it because he thought would be good for the economy and didn't have his arm twisted.So lets get this straight.

Clinton gave Bush an economy that he squandered but deregulation which helped push the economy into the stratosphere is wrong (though appearnetly it wasn't wrong when Clinton passed it). And even though it was passed by a democratic president it's PHil Grahams fault and not the presidents fault. And even though Obama is so against it he hires Biden who voted for it as his VP and the economic advisers who oversaw deregulation as HIS advisers to advise him. BUT the republicans are for big business. And here you are blaming republicans and here the libs are blaming PHil Graham.Blame your democratic president! The buck stops with him. Yet more democratic and lib lying and demagoguery and hypocricy. By the way, this exact same thing happened with Iraq. I don't know how you libs can lie so much and yet keep a straight face at the same time and be so shamfully demagogic while at the same time so willing to forget your sides role in the economy or Iraq, or Fannie Mae & Freddie mac. It's all simplistic slogans. Blame bush. Blame white greed. Blame republicans for believing in deregulation. You guys are simplistic morons.We're not talking about ancient history either. Clinton was the president right before Bush. You can't expect rewrite and forget history one administration later. You shouldn't expect the administration to forget so quickly. (THough I realize we are dealing with a good portion of the population who are complete and utter morons - lets call them liberals). Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq! He betrayed us! Uh, what happened during the previous administration again? Well, Clinton and the UN passed 15 resolutions, passed the Iraq Liberation Act, passed excessive sanctions on the country and bombed them repeatedly all because of Iraq's non compliance in it's verifiable disarmament (in other words, its WMD's). But that's not important because...Bush lied! He betrayed us!

Seeing that James is correct I know that I was played for a total fool yesterday when I commented that I appreciated Breitbart's efforts in this situation.

Years ago I promised myself that I was done, finished, finito w/ having the Rs play me for a fool. [Unbelievable as it may seem, until not too long ago I was a life long, hard core R.] Obviously I was wrong about never being the Rs' sucker.

At least I followed up my appreciative comment w/ a comment noting that Breitbart had been an untrustworthy manipulator in the past.

How the cons here haven't noticed that the Rs are full of it is hard for me to understand: Ds may be wolves, but Rs are wolves in sheeps' clothing. So, I'm sticking w/ the Ds. At least they have a record of balancing the budget. [Even though that occurred while I was a Clinton hater.] In retrospect I'm no longer enthused about Reagan's ability to triple the debt and double our deficit's (as a percentage of GDP). So what if the growth was good, he was throwing a 3% Keynesian (i.e. borrowed from home and abroad) boost at the economy thanks to moving the deficits from 3% of GDP to 6% of GDP. And, this is the legacy that current day Rs want to replicate.

Someone must be spreading the word about Althouse. All of a sudden half of the messages are from people who have never posted here before. Did some site suddenly start directing traffic here, urge people to sign up and start providing "balance"?

Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, wrote that if Rush Limbaugh were having a heart attack, she would"“Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment. In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Journolist was corrupt. So is the right-wing blogosphere. The events this week are confirming what I posted about this subject the last time it came up. The political blogosphere is pathetic on both sides. Looks like more of the Jounrolisters are being exposed this week, but also that Breitbart exposed himself as a scoundrel. Good.

What's not good is that innocent people are being hurt along the way.

When Breitbart's tactic got Sherrod fired, he tweeted: "How many times can anono-blogger @allahpundit write same piece in which he raises specter of me falling on face while I stand in end zone?"

Breitbart was celebrating in the end zone because he got this woman fired, and it turns out he used deceptive tactics to harm this woman. Shameful.

Bloggers like InstaPundit and Althouse gave him high-fives.

But Althouse was careful not to overtly endorse what Breitbart did. I guess she knew that you can't trust Breitbart's integrity. But that didn't stop her from coordinating with InstaPundit to root Breitbart on as he danced in the end end zone.

Althouse has let herself get sucked too far in to her sort-of-alliance with the right-wing blogosphere. IMO, she needs to start calling some of these people out, and demonstrate her independence from them.

BReitbart and InstaPundit can spin it however they like, but those two pushed a lie about Sherrod this week. They should apologize.

Hit & Run: Breitbart's site now wants to focus on why the USDA and/or the White House pushed her out the door with so little evidence. Not a bad topic, but first you might want to acknowledge the fact that your entire story has fallen apart.

Althouse seems to be coordinating with the right-wing blogosphere on their spin now that their story has fallen apart.

While Breitbart, Althouse, The Daily Caller, etc. are pointing out the racial hatred being inserted into the national dialogue by Liberals, the Liberals themselves are clamoring for more of the same. Why the need for all the hateful rhetoric? Why the dependence on racial animosity?

As for Denmark and the rest of the satellite states in Europe, they have the existence of remoras. As the US and other world powers do the dirty work of capitalism, the satellite states grab the bits and pieces that inevitably accrue, never having to get into the fray themselves.

By the left: collusion among numerous major news organizations to promote, hide, or slant the news and vilify undesirables.

You think the right-wing media people aren't coordinating? The only thing I'll grant you is that the Dems/Leftists have more major news organizations who are sympathetic to them, so you can understand why the right would want their own channels and so forth. Hell, CBS pushed fake documents to try and influence a presidential election, and the way Dan Rather talked when that scandal was exposed was pretty scary. He was going on to DailyKos to get their spin, trying to defend documents that were proven fakes.

What bothers me is that the BLOGOSPHERE doesn't have more independent voices. I had a naive vision of what the blogosphere could be ten years ago, I guess. It's like you have to join a team in order to succeed as a blogger. Why aren't these propagandists being knocked off their perches? I feel both sides of the blogosphere are filled with people eager to lie on a daily basis. Ten years ago I would've thought that such things would bring shame upon a blogger from other bloggers and their readers. Instead, it brings them more links and more traffic.

Now, Althouse is one of the good ones. I know I've posted some bad things at her and stuff (sometimes when I shouldn't have), but I truly do think she's a good blogger who is in it for the right reasons. But she is becoming too allied with with the right-wing blogosphere.

Air said... Someone must be spreading the word about Althouse. .. Did some site suddenly start directing traffic here, urge people to sign up and start providing "balance"?"

Balance to what? You know full well that due to the popularity of this site it has become a target for the uber-recht bloggers as the postings here show up on search. What are there on here? 3-4 "liberals" and then if Ann pumps out some redmeat issue like guns or abortion or Obama/racism then the world descends.

It is a clever tactic but all it demonstrates so far is that the right wing needs to take some lessons in creative writing and telling the truth all rolled up into one.

LoafingOaf, you are missing the story. It is not what Sherrod said that was so execrable, but the reaction by the NAACP crowd. Many of them laughed at the notion of Sherrod not giving the white farmer her best effort, as if it served the white man right. THAT was the real racism in the story, and the perfect example of why the NAACP has no standing to hurl accusations of racism at anyone else. Glass houses and all that.

Loafing Oaf, when and where did Breitbart lie?If you are talking abvout releasing the video clip as he received it, thenm that's not a lie, that's normal online journalism/investigation.

The fact is that Sherrod, with her off-handed racism and apparent inability to communicate effectively, deserved the boot that she got. Oh, and I do have to admit that Barry now having second thoughts about his panic reaction cracks me up. Can't wait 'til he says "The President acted stupidly" and re-hires her.